UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4691
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AMY DIOEN BURCH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:11-cr-00078-TLW-8)
Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: January 24, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Thomas McBratney, III, MCBRATNEY LAW FIRM, P.A., Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Amy Dioen Burch appeals her seventy-eight-month
sentence imposed after her guilty plea to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base
(“crack”). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the following issues:
(1) whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
while conducting Burch’s plea hearing; (2) whether the district
court erred in denying Burch’s motion for a variance sentence
based on the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006);
and (3) whether Burch’s sentence was unreasonable. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
First, because Burch did not move to withdraw her
guilty plea in the district court or raise any objections to the
Rule 11 colloquy, we review the colloquy for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 527 (4th Cir. 2002).
We find that the district court substantially complied with Rule
11’s requirements. Second, because review of the sentencing
hearing reveals that the district court understood its ability
to grant Burch’s motion for a variance, but chose to deny the
motion, we cannot review that decision on appeal. See United
States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367, 371 (4th Cir. 2008) (noting that
we lack the authority to review a district court’s denial of a
2
downward departure unless the district court failed to
understand its authority to do so).
Finally, we find Burch’s seventy-eight-month sentence
was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007) (providing reasonableness review using an abuse of
discretion standard). We find no significant procedural errors,
id.; United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 (4th Cir. 2008),
and find that the sentence is substantively reasonable. United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Review the
record reveals that Burch was sentenced at the bottom of her
correctly calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, after
the court granted the Government’s three-level reduction for
substantial assistance under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 5K1.1 (2010). Moreover, Burch fails to rebut the appellate
presumption that her properly calculated, within-Guidelines
sentence is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Go, 517
F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir. 2008).
We have examined the entire record under Anders,
including the issues raised in Burch’s pro se supplemental
brief, and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform Burch, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Burch requests that a petition be filed, but
3
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Burch. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4